Why are you posting this on a forum instead of dealing with your manager, his boss or even as Calvin suggests call him?

You are not unique in having the issues you are having with your loans. I hear these stories all the time from several different shops. Unfortunately it seems like the rules change on a daily basis. Your employer has to adjust quickly in this environment. Instead of thinking there is some conspiracy theory try to find out why this is happening.

If you don't roll with the changes, the changes will roll over you!

actionJ I actually applaud Calvin for responding to allegations and taking the time to post here especially since he does so without posting an angry reparte. Put yourself in his shoes, if someone was saying things about you would you want to respond. (Although I do agree there are times that a response is not warranted. As my grampy used to say.. You can get into a pissing contest with a skunk, But even if you win you still smell like skunk.)

_________________WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO PUT A SMILE ON SOMEONE'S FACE TODAY????

Speak to the current Assurity retail originators who have rock solid , 790 Fico, low DTI loans in the pipe that have been in process for close to 60 days and are not yet ready to close.

A 790 credit score doesn't automatically entitle anybody to a loan. Alt A and Prime defaults are showing the industry that it cannot live by credit score alone. You still have to look at the actual credit report and information therein. Back when I was processing, I dealt with many files with pristine credit where the loan officer would fight me on everything or there was a value issue or an occupancy issue. Often times it was a loan officer playing the market and losing issue. What I do know is that 60 days in process is not necessarily the company's fault.

Quote:

On his third 'processor', dealing with unwarrented delays, mandatory full review of the FHA apprisal, though the value far exceeds the sale price; conditions lost or 'not received' in transition from alledged processor to underwriter, though a copy of the complete email package was cc's to the originator.

Underwriters are supposed to complete a full review of the appraisal regardless of whether the "value" exceeds the "sales price". The issues that can come up on appraisals are simply too numerous to mention, and prudence is warranted in a declining market. You have looked at the rising FHA delinquency and default rate haven't you? As far as conditions lost or not received, its not uncommon for a representative to say that a condition is handled when what was provided didn't meet the condition or led to other conditions. Reps constantly complain about having to provide disclosures they already provided when what was needed was another form with the correct date, revision, additional signature or original. Most processors, funders, and underwriters are familiar with the "disappearing" condition phenomenon. When I underwrote wholesale, it would drive me insane. Also, emailing conditions is no more fool proof than faxing.

Quote:

New Rules: another form or disclosure to sign: can't find the one you sent. Can't have that meaningless form signed at closing: prior to docs only!!!! Email condition package dated 3-03, not yet received in undewriting.

What "meaningless" forms are you talking about that are required PTD? Are you talking about disclosures that are supposed to be made at time of application such as the Informed Choice Disclosure, Home Inspection Notice, FHA ARM disclosure, Amendatory Clause, Notice to Homebuyers, GFE/REG that is somewhat accurate? As far as emailed conditions not making it to underwriting for a week, again, email is not fool proof. Emails, can get buried the same as any fax or document. You're not going to convince me that Calvin Hamler is the Anti-Christ because your friends emailed conditions were lost or underwriting was backlogged.

Quote:

Need a more current bank statement, this one is from 2-26. Doesn't matter that it's only got $64 in it, not needed to close and the borrower has $22,000 in reserves.

Perhaps the prior months balance wasn't on the account or the underwriter needs 2 months statements? Perhaps the underwriter is asking for the statement for the account that has the funds to close and reserves. If the account was inconsequential, why even disclose the account in the first place? Is your friend new?

Quote:

Forty years in this business and I've seen it all, or at least I thought so.

I'm afraid you ain't seen nothing yet. Consolidation in the bank industry is going to create changes to the industry that most of us would never think possible. JP/Chase has already taken a stance against TPO's and have stated that with the acquisition of WAMU, they can handle 70% of America's lending needs. And yesterday, Jamie Dimon announced an anticipated 25% increase in outsourcing. Lending will definitely change because the government has created a situation whereby certain institutions have been given the power to dominate the market and squeeze out competition. With industry consolidation, rising delinquencies, and declining values, expect documentation and quality standards to change.

Quote:

But now comes Calvin Crew with excuses that, I must admit, are as creative, not to mention big balls bold, as I could ever imagine. Hey, when you're broke, your broke. Turn out the lights on the way out. Wake up in the morning feeeling bad for your former associates but able to look at the man in the mirror.

If you have actual evidence that the company is insolvent, can no longer function and has no chance in h**l at survival, please present it or provide it Randall or Robin so they can research and report on the issue. But to come out and make unfounded accusations that are based on unsupported, third party hearsay is uncool at best. It doesn't seem credible and comes off like a smear campaign.

Peace.

Beezar[/quote]

_________________"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." -Albert Einstein

Wow! This guy does not give up and a zebra don't change it's stripes....
Five years after the implosion of Absurdity Financial, he's got a new game going.
His currently company, in the solicitation for a contract with a large (public) pension investment board in the Midwest was scrambling for references. An email was forwarded to me from within the company and contained the following:
[i]"Calvin would also serve as a nice referrence for our financial capabilities and would be representing Assurity by perhaps using an alias."
[/i]

Aside from the obvious ethical implications, what are the legal implications of falsifying references when bidding on government contracts?
If he managed to slip the cuffs before, perhaps it will catch up to him in the future....

View next topicView previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum